Backswing and two-bladed sword


Rules Questions


The lvl 7 ability of the twohanded fighter archetype, states that you get double strenght to damage on all attacks except the first when full attacking with a two handed weapon.
This dosn't say that you need to wield the weapon with both hands, just that it needs to be a twohanded weapon.
Can this be combined with a doubleweapon, such as a twohanded sword to get double strenght on all other than the first attack while twoweapon fighting?


I'd say not when they are using it for two-weapon fighting....

Double Weapons:... A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.


RAW: The rules don't explicitly prohibit this. However...

In general, when you use something as something else, it's treated as that something else.

For instance, if you find a longsword sized for a creature one category larger than you, you can wield it as a two-handed weapon.

So, while a longsword is a one-handed weapon, you're not wielding it that way, so you wouldn't benefit from anything that requires using a one-handed weapon.

Likewise, if you're using a smaller-sized greatsword in one hand, you're using it as a one-handed weapon, and wouldn't benefit from anything that requires using a two-handed weapon.

When using both ends of a double weapon, you're treated as fighting with two weapons (a one-handed weapon and a light weapon).

The rules don't explicitly say that a weapon does not retain it's encumbrance category when wielded differently, but there's plenty of evidence showing that is the intent. A mounted lancer using one hand, the Phalanx Soldier, the bastard sword, etc.

Scarab Sages

It depends on how you treat double weapons without that ability. There are 4 valid interpretations of the rules that I can gauge:

1) A double weapon is treated as a one-handed weapon/light weapon. This means the Strength bonus to damage is x1/x0.5 and power attack at -1 to hit grants +2/+0 damage.

2) A double weapon is treated as a one-handed weapon/one-handed weapon with a bonus that it only has the two-weapon fighting penalties as though the off-hand weapon were light. This means the Strength bonus to damage is x1/x0.5 and power attack at -1 to hit grants +2/+2 damage.

3) A double weapon is as a two-handed weapon but only suffers the two-weapon penalties as if a light weapon were in the off hand. An off-hand attack is nonsensical as it is a two-handed weapon with two attacking ends - there is just "the weapon". This means the Strength bonus to damage is x1.5/x1.5 and power attack at -1 to hit grants +3/+3 damage.

4) A double weapon is as a two-handed weapon/light weapon because the two-weapon penalties dictate the off-hand attack is light. This means the Strength bonus to damage is x1.5/x0.5 and power attack at -1 to hit grants +3/+0 damage.

If you use the 7th level ability of the two-handed fighter archetype, replace all instances of x1.5 with x2.

[I'd like to think #3 is correct, because my group errs to #2 and a double weapon has never been used at our table, EVER. #3 gives a decent reason to sink an exotic feat into one and makes more sense from a real-world physics view: two hands are on the weapon so more power can be put behind each blow.]


MC Templar wrote:

I'd say not when they are using it for two-weapon fighting....

Double Weapons:... A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

I did read that, but I think it only concerns the attack penalties associated with dualwielding.


Horselord wrote:
a double weapon has never been used at our table, EVER.

You might be entertained by James Jacobs' thoughts on double weapons.


Grick wrote:

RAW: The rules don't explicitly prohibit this. However...

In general, when you use something as something else, it's treated as that something else.

For instance, if you find a longsword sized for a creature one category larger than you, you can wield it as a two-handed weapon.

So, while a longsword is a one-handed weapon, you're not wielding it that way, so you wouldn't benefit from anything that requires using a one-handed weapon.

Likewise, if you're using a smaller-sized greatsword in one hand, you're using it as a one-handed weapon, and wouldn't benefit from anything that requires using a two-handed weapon.

When using both ends of a double weapon, you're treated as fighting with two weapons (a one-handed weapon and a light weapon).

The rules don't explicitly say that a weapon does not retain it's encumbrance category when wielded differently, but there's plenty of evidence showing that is the intent. A mounted lancer using one hand, the Phalanx Soldier, the bastard sword, etc.

I think I probaly would agree with you. Using the weapon like I originally suggested, is not forbidden by RAW but is most likely not RAI.

Scarab Sages

Grick wrote:
Horselord wrote:
a double weapon has never been used at our table, EVER.

You might be entertained by James Jacobs' thoughts on double weapons.

I thought Darth Maul was a strong inspiration for the double-sword! There are some silly double weapons though, but there are also sensible ones like the quarterstaff.


Darth mauls double saber isn't really my thing either.
But that dosn't mean that double weapons can't be cool i think a elf fighter whirling through enemies with a double bladed sword all dervish like could be pretty cool.

Scarab Sages

It just sucks that from a mechanical standpoint, it is better just using two longswords: no exotic feat, longswords are easy to find, and if your DM uses version #1 of how double-weapons work (see my earlier post) they are inferior for damage output.

Also, just being able to pick a good exotic weapon and wielding two of them tends to be better anyway. Dual wielding two katanas beats a double-sword on damage through critical chance, and if you are a two-weapon fighter, the penalties are small.


Horselord wrote:

It just sucks that from a mechanical standpoint, it is better just using two longswords: no exotic feat, longswords are easy to find, and if your DM uses version #1 of how double-weapons work (see my earlier post) they are inferior for damage output.

Also, just being able to pick a good exotic weapon and wielding two of them tends to be better anyway. Dual wielding two katanas beats a double-sword on damage through critical chance, and if you are a two-weapon fighter, the penalties are small.

I would probaly still prefer to wield two light weapons. Such as kukris or wakisomthings.


Zahubo wrote:
MC Templar wrote:

I'd say not when they are using it for two-weapon fighting....

Double Weapons:... A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

I did read that, but I think it only concerns the attack penalties associated with dualwielding.

That would be the actual words of the rules, though everyone elects to read more into them like the above in the thread.

Power attack is certainly interesting as the offhand attacks get both the bonus and the penalty.

The strength bonus is the interesting one in that both are SET rather than applied.

-James


Horselord wrote:
It just sucks that from a mechanical standpoint, it is better just using two longswords: no exotic feat, longswords are easy to find, and if your DM uses version #1 of how double-weapons work (see my earlier post) they are inferior for damage output.

Two-handed sword vs, two longswords:

- Exactly the same damage: Str. bonus and PA is equal on the primary and off hand of them.
- Longswords get -4 to hit, the two-bladed only -2.
- Two-bladed sword cost 1 feat.
- Two-bladed sword can be used two-handed if you can't full attack (or TWF is otherwise inferior at the moment). One of the longswords must be dropped for this to happen.
- Two-bladed sword can be used in one hand if a free hand is needed. One of the longswords must be dropped for this to happen.

In itself the extra +2 to hit is worth the exotic feat. On top of this you get quite a lot of versatility.

Spending a feat on another exotic weapon might either mitigate the attack penalty or grant either damage or a special quality, but not all of it. And nothing is as flexible.


Grick wrote:
Horselord wrote:
a double weapon has never been used at our table, EVER.

You might be entertained by James Jacobs' thoughts on double weapons.

I'm totally with that but..

rant:
If that's the case I wonder why they can't manage to make a decent orc weapon. The super cool orc weapon expertise is totally wasted without a weapon to use it with.
I seldome strongly criticise the devs but that is really something that makes me sad.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Backswing and two-bladed sword All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.